No sooner was it announced that the US would pursue legally
binding commitments to reduce heat-trapping gas emissions at the
international climate change talks last July, than the
Administration's position was attacked by industry and
science skeptics who benefit from the status quo. One of the
critics' main arguments is that taking action to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions is too costly -- our economy will be
seriously harmed, they argue; the American standard of living
will be lowered; and untold numbers of people will be thrown out
of work.

In the face of this unrelenting mantra of a ruined economy,
several prominent US economists -- including Nobel Laureates
Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University and Robert M. Solow of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- developed a mechanism to
counter these negative -- and unfounded -- assertions. Thus, they
crafted and circulated the "Economists' Statement on
Climate Change" to rally professional economists in support
of the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
conclusions and to publicly assert the economic viability of
climate change mitigation strategies. The recruitment letter
soliciting signers explains: "As the climate debate unfolds,
it is imperative that public policy be guided by sound economics
rather than misleading claims put forward by special interest
groups."

The "Economists' Statement on Climate Change"
will be released at a press conference this Thursday, February
13, 1997. 2000 economists have signed on to the statement,
including six Nobel Laureates. The statement (text below)
champions the conclusions of the IPCC report, asserts the
economic feasibility of greenhouse gas reductions without harming
the American economy, and recommends market-based policies:

"ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE" --
Feb. 13, 1997

We the undersigned agree that:

I. The review conducted by a distinguished international panel
of scientists under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change has determined that "the balance of
evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global
climate." As economists, we believe that global climate
change carries with it significant environmental, economic,
social, and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are
justified.

II. Economics studies have found that there are many potential
policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total
benefits outweigh the total costs. For the United States in
particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy
options that would slow climate change without harming American
living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S.
productivity in the longer run.

III. The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is
through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve
its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach
among nations is required -- such as an international emissions
trading agreement. The United States and other nations can most
efficiently implement their climate policies through market
mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or the auction of emissions
permits. The revenues generated from such policies can
effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing
taxes."

-- The organizational impetus behind the economists'
effort comes from Redefining Progress, a non-partisan, non-profit
public policy organization based in San Francisco. For
information about "Redefining Progress" or how to sign
onto the statement, contact: "Redefining Progress" at 1
Kearny Street, 4th floor, San Francisco, CA 94108
(415)781-1191.